The Worst Film Ever

Simply Perfect

Good concept, poorly executed.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This very unconventional vampire horror film is more of a tragic love story. Although it is a bit slow moving, it is captivating and never boring. The acting was really brilliant and the foreboding atmosphere made you wonder what was going to happen next. It was sensual and erotic at times, but very effective. Towards the end some scenes were really gross and actually difficult to watch - not because of gore but due to the shock factor. At the end, the climatic scramble for shade scene was funny as it was sad - loved it! This was just an effective vampire film as 2008's Swedish film 'Let the right one in'.

I like to keep my reviews short, i rather review the film than compare it or describe it scene by scene like a lot of people like to do, so let's get to it.I honestly came close to not finishing the movie because I was looking for scary and this isn't much of that, but there is A LOT of blood and violence. The only reason I kept watching was because even though it wasn't creepy or scary, it was a beautifully shot and very well made film. The story feels different than other vampire movies it's not just a bunch of the same old vampire clichés. the acting is good for the most part, personally i think the 2 main characters were amazing. It's kind of long, but the movie gets better as it progresses, the ending is nothing less than what You would expect(considering who directed the film). So in short, if you're looking for scary in the traditional sense You won't find it here, but if You're a fan of the Vampire and gore genres or just want to watch a good movie You'll certainly enjoy it.

In an age where vampires are harmless enough to become a teen's high school crush, here comes one that puts the horror back into them. A priest becomes a vampire from a blood transfusion - which begs the question: how did the Red Cross get a VAMPIRE to donate a pint? - then gets involved with an unhappily married woman. But the priest finds the prospect of killing to slake his new thirst appalling, while the woman sees a conversion to vampirism as a way of liberating herself from her drab existence. Very much NOT in the cutesy romantic mold of The Vampire Diaries and the like, this movie plays like a black comedy / erotic horror movie, with the dark desires, self-loathing and self-deceptions of the two main characters on full view the whole time. Odd, eccentric and quite watchable, thanks to good special effects and eerie cinematography.

It was interesting to see a new kind of vampire in Thirst. A priest turning into a vampire, this idea is fresh and new. This movie reminds me of the literature The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Both works have the same links in terms of religion, gender, sin, redemption, etc. As Hester and Dimmesdale were suppressed by the society and religion, Tae-ju and Sang-hyeon were under oppression. In Thirst, the oppression suffocating them revived and became tremendous desires when the couple turned into vampires. The desires gulf almost every people including Tae-ju and Sang-hyeon. A little bit unlike The Scarlet Letter, Thirst shows throughout the process how they sinned and its reason and result.In The Scarlet Letter, Hester should live along with redemption due to the love with Dimmesdale, a minister. She put a letter A on her clothes as a mark of her sin. However, she made the A with fabulous scarlet color, which stands for her desire. In Thirst Tae-ju displayed her desire by sucking red blood. She lived with the desire pretty much excessively. The reason why Sang-hyeon and Tae-ju became to live like this is, i think, not because of their innate endless desire, but because of the irresistible oppression put on them. Just like human would fly without landing forever if he is released from the physical fetter. However, the reasons of oppression are different for them. As a priest, Sang-hyeon chose the oppression of his own will in order to be faithful to God. In contrary, Tae-ju had lived under suppression, and she could not had resisted against it. It was not her own will. Furthermore, it is very interesting that it is a priest and a vampire Sang-hyeon who revived, killed, and incriminated Tae-ju. Even after Tae-ju got to get rid of oppression, she had to face another tragedy that she actually has nothing to choose on her own. What is more, she couldn't help but wait for her death sitting next to Sang-hyeon who wait for redemption. Tae-ju couldn't be redeemed, not like Sang-hyeon. In short, she had to live only with another's will from start to end. The situation is repeated in Thirst that Dimmesdale made his destiny by himself with much relief although Hester got ignored and sacrificed in The Scarlet Letter. It might be the reason the death of Taejoo is reliving and pitiful at the same time. Horrible desires are punished in the film. But the punishment is not applied to Sang-hyeon, because he was redeemed. The one who got it is Tae-ju, and her desire is still in her boot which didn't turn into ashes. All the actors did great job. Especially, Kim Hae Suk and Shin Ha kyun worked nicely. In the film, Shin didn't take a big part, but his character Kang-woo is very important and he played well. (maybe he is Chillingworth from The Scarlet Letter? they have pretty many similarities) If you like this movie and Shin, i would like to recommend the korean film called "Guns and Talks."